PDA

View Full Version : Is there a way for congress to authorize a no-fly zone without declaring all-out war?




BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 03:23 PM
If not, then there should be. Because if all congress can do is declare war, then the military isn't limited in the tools it can use.

Anybody know how the constitution and relevant laws come down in this issue?

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 03:25 PM
If not, then there should be.

how? enacting a no-fly zone is an act of war. you're basically asking to go to war without going to war.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 03:28 PM
Here let me quote my first post, and maybe bold part of the sentence this time, so you might understand.



If not, then there should be. Because if all congress can do is declare war, then the military isn't limited in the tools it can use.

Anybody know how the constitution and relevant laws come down in this issue?

muzzled dogg
03-20-2011, 03:29 PM
how is it not out of US jurisdiction?

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 03:31 PM
Here let me quote my first post, and maybe bold part of the sentence this time, so you might understand.

ok. i see. you're asking congress not to declare war, but 1/10 of a war. that makes a lot of sense.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 03:33 PM
how is it not out of US jurisdiction?

Good question, it definitely is out of our jurisdiction. I'm just thinking about what America should do if there were a situation similar to Libya with one of our neighbors, say Cuba or Mexico. If the Cuban people decided to rise up and try to throw out Castro, but Castro was able to hold the rebellion back with helicopters and bombers, wouldn't we want our military to use it's significant air prowess to even the scales?

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 03:35 PM
If the Cuban people decided to rise up and try to throw out Castro, but Castro was able to hold the rebellion back with helicopters and bombers, wouldn't we want our military to use it's significant air prowess to even the scales?

you would if you were a neocon.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 03:39 PM
you would if you were a neocon.

Not really, Cuba doesn't have any oil or geo-political significance.

LibForestPaul
03-20-2011, 03:43 PM
If not, then there should be. Because if all congress can do is declare war, then the military isn't limited in the tools it can use.

Anybody know how the constitution and relevant laws come down in this issue?

Yes, they are restricted. Natural Law -> Constitution -> Treatise - > Military Code of Conduct...
Not to mention chain of command...
Have you not seen the videos...
Captain : I have enemy on site. RPG's spotted.
Command : Permission to engage.
Captain : Engaging targets. Firing 50 cal.
...etc.

QueenB4Liberty
03-20-2011, 03:45 PM
Not really, Cuba doesn't have any oil or geo-political significance.

Why would we want to get involved?

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 03:53 PM
Yes, they are restricted. Natural Law -> Constitution -> Treatise - > Military Code of Conduct...
Not to mention chain of command...
Have you not seen the videos...
Captain : I have enemy on site. RPG's spotted.
Command : Permission to engage.
Captain : Engaging targets. Firing 50 cal.
...etc.

Yeah, I guess that is the way it works. Once congress declares war, the president and military should be on the same level as to what should be done, due to the treaties and public discourse and what not.

libertygrl
03-20-2011, 03:53 PM
Con. Pete King says the Pres. has the inherent power to take military action without approval! I just posted something similar along with a clear explanation from the 10th amendment center on the executive branch and war powers:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284221-Pete-King-on-Libya-quot-Pres.-Has-Constitutional-Power-To-Take-Military-Action-quot

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:01 PM
Con. Pete King says the Pres. has the inherent power to take military action without approval! I just posted something similar along with a clear explanation from the 10th amendment center on the executive branch and war powers:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284221-Pete-King-on-Libya-quot-Pres.-Has-Constitutional-Power-To-Take-Military-Action-quot

Hmmm, according to the info you found, congress decides, within the declaration of war, which course of action to take and where the endpoint is. I always thought a declaration of war was just a simple "We declare war against ______"

dannno
03-20-2011, 04:06 PM
OP, why do you so often side with CIA ops?


Specifically MI6 in this case.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283113-The-War-Drums-Are-Pounding!!-Libyan-Rebels-Being-Fomented-By-International-Intelligence

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:12 PM
OP, why do you so often side with CIA ops?


Specifically MI6 in this case.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283113-The-War-Drums-Are-Pounding!!-Libyan-Rebels-Being-Fomented-By-International-Intelligence

Why do you so often side with dictators? (See what I did there?)

The only people who's side I'm taking are the Libyans, who became rebels after their dictator gunned them down when they were peacefully protesting.

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 04:13 PM
The only people who's side I'm taking are the Libyans, who became rebels after their dictator gunned them down when they were peacefully protesting.

do you know for sure that the new government will be better for the people of Libya?

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:14 PM
do you know for sure that the new government will be better for the people of Libya?

Please don't derail the thread, but to answer your question: I have no idea, but I hope it will be.

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 04:16 PM
Please don't derail the thread, but to answer your question: I have no idea, but I hope it will be.

so you want to gamble with the lives of Libyans using stolen money from Americans. nice.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:18 PM
so you want to gamble with the lives of Libyans using stolen money from Americans. nice.

I've repeatedly said all over this forum that I don't want Americans to be involved in the no-fly zone, you fucking ignorant prick.

dannno
03-20-2011, 04:27 PM
Why do you so often side with dictators? (See what I did there?)

The only people who's side I'm taking are the Libyans, who became rebels after their dictator gunned them down when they were peacefully protesting.

The Libyans didn't just BECOME rebels, they were trained by MI6.. PLEASE read that article I posted.. you are making the assumption that they will be better off under our (western) control, because that is clearly the plan here, clearly, you can't deny it. I think they would be better off on their own, and so do most of the Libyans. They would rather have a dictator than be under western control. That is why there are so many god damn dictators over there, because people like you over here support taking control away from them.

It's time to end this horrible cycle, stop perpetuating it, PLEASE!!

dannno
03-20-2011, 04:37 PM
I've repeatedly said all over this forum that I don't want Americans to be involved in the no-fly zone, you fucking ignorant prick.

It doesn't matter whether "Americans" are involved, the interests of the globalists run MI6 and they run our country and they are trying to run Libya.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:39 PM
The Libyans didn't just BECOME rebels, they were trained by MI6.. PLEASE read that article.. you are making the assumption that they will be better off under our (western) control, because that is clearly the plan here, clearly, you can't deny it. I think they would be better off on their own.

Just because a few British and US intelligence agents were in Libya doesn't mean the ENTIRE rebellion was trained by them. Most of the rebels were trained by the Libyan military, and defected after the protests. Everyone else was trained by those defectors.

The Coalition forces have explicitly stated that they have no plans to send in ground troops. The rebels have also asked for only a no-fly zone; they want no foreign boots on the ground. So if that holds up, then the ability for the west to control them will be limited to the old school, Hosni Mubarak-style corruption.

I'm hoping for two things here: One, the new movements in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere are more keen to improper western influence, and two, that the elites who control the western governments are realizing that they have to be more hands off because the people of the middle east are becoming more aware of the puppet strings. Both of these things are happening, but it could all be for nothing if the protesters become complacent and don't hold their new governments to strict standards.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:43 PM
It doesn't matter whether "Americans" are involved, the interests of the globalists run MI6 and they run our country and they are trying to run Libya.

Yes it does matter that Americans are involved. So far, Americans have had a larger footprint than any other country in the Middle East. So for the sake of the legitimacy of the no-fly zone, and for the legitimacy of the new movements arising in the middle east, we need to stay out of it.

I'm not denying that globalists are trying to control the situation, but they're certainly not controlling the situation. The never intended for Ben-Ali or Mubarak to be ousted, and they've been trying to catch up ever since. They're essentially on damage control. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic about these revolutions.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 04:51 PM
Back to the original question, no, in 1789 the whole world was a 'no fly zone'. John Quincy Adams warned against wandering around the world looking for monsters to slay, but we seem deaf to the entreaty. But the concept of a war that isn't a war is a pretty new construct. It seems to have been invented for Korea and then found, shall we say, convenient...

I don't believe the concept of 'a limited conflict' was even in the consciousness. Back when you had to wait until you saw the whites of their eyes before you had much of a chance of hitting them, war couldn't be kept so impersonal.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 04:54 PM
think they would be better off on their own, and so do most of the Libyans. They would rather have a dictator than be under western control. That is why there are so many god damn dictators over there, because people like you over here support taking control away from them.

It's time to end this horrible cycle, stop perpetuating it, PLEASE!!

I don't know what your sources are, but everything I've been hearing indicates that the rebels, which have the support of the majority of the Libyan population, have asked for the no-fly zone. So it seems to me that they want neither western-control OR a dictator. They want a no-fly zone to even the playing field so they may overthrow their dictator and form some sort of accountable government.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 04:59 PM
I don't know what your sources are, but everything I've been hearing indicates that the rebels, which have the support of the majority of the Libyan population, have asked for the no-fly zone. So it seems to me that they want neither western-control OR a dictator. They want a no-fly zone to even the playing field so they may overthrow their dictator and form some sort of accountable government.

You are absolutely correct, and it was as you describe it up until yesterday. Today they're like, uh, this is more than we asked for, and we're beginning to wonder if you imperialistic people want a piece of the action when we're done...

nobody's_hero
03-20-2011, 05:06 PM
If not, then there should be. Because if all congress can do is declare war, then the military isn't limited in the tools it can use.

Anybody know how the constitution and relevant laws come down in this issue?

The military isn't supposed to be limited. If you're limiting the military, then you aren't using it right. The military is a Hell-shattering force of overwhelming destructive capabilities with the sole purpose of breaking an enemy force's capabilities of mounting any sort of threat to the United States (which 9/10 of the time doesn't even exist in the first place, these days). This is why military force should always be a last resort, but if you are to use the military, don't tie their hands. Our problem is that we allow the president to nonchalantly send our military off to war performing roles they aren't meant to play. They're not going over there to give out ice cream and read story books to kids. That's the Orwellian version of a 'humanitarian' war but it never quite goes that way—at least, not after they've counted the bodies.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 05:10 PM
The military isn't supposed to be limited. If you're limiting the military, then you aren't usnig it right.

I know what you're saying here, but I can't help but think that entering a third simultaneous war is limiting to the military and definitely qualifies as misusing it. This right out of the box, even before you start egregiously tying your commanders' hands.

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 05:13 PM
The military isn't supposed to be limited. If you're limiting the military, then you aren't using it right. The military is a Hell-shattering force of overwhelming destructive capabilities with the sole purpose of breaking an enemy force's capabilities of mounting any sort of threat to the United States (which 9/10 of the time doesn't even exist in the first place, these days).

Exactly. Congress has authority to declare war, not 1/10 of a war. The Founders weren't that dumb.

Yieu
03-20-2011, 05:15 PM
A no-fly zone is an act of war. An act of war is an act of war. Performing an act of war is an unspoken declaration of war (but a formal one should be given). No, you can't have a portion of a war and consider it to not be a war. An act of war, whatever that act may be, is still war. A no-fly zone IS war. The non-interventionist and non-aggression principle/peace/anti-war position recognize this. A no-fly zone is not something light; it is very grave, as is war, because it is an act of war.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 05:17 PM
Yieu are right.

Or do I mean, Yieu is right? But that doesn't sound right...

nobody's_hero
03-20-2011, 05:21 PM
I know what you're saying here, but I can't help but think that entering a third simultaneous war is limiting to the military and definitely qualifies as misusing it. This right out of the box, even before you start egregiously tying your commanders' hands.

Oh, sure. I make no claims that this conflict is in any way justified, but I'm just pointing out a trend I'm seeing with modern conflicts on the whole. It's been the thinking of many a president that 'oh, this is just a no-fly zone, this isn't actually a war.' Which is only true if you're looking at it from one side, I suppose.

We have a serious problem with half-assing things, basically. We're like a kid who keeps raking sticks along the fence and then gets surprised when the dog mauls us. We used to either go to the fence and knock the dog out in one blow, or (better still), we didn't mess with the dog at all.

angelatc
03-20-2011, 05:22 PM
If not, then there should be. Because if all congress can do is declare war, then the military isn't limited in the tools it can use.

Anybody know how the constitution and relevant laws come down in this issue?

We shouldn't be policing the world.

nobody's_hero
03-20-2011, 05:29 PM
Exactly. Congress has authority to declare war, not 1/10 of a war. The Founders weren't that dumb.

Bingo. Coincidentally, the founders took 'war' as a much more serious issue than our congressmen do today, and I blame much of that on the perpetual false notion that there is any such thing as a 'humanitarian' war.

I believe it was Sherman who said, 'It is good that war is Hell, 'lest we grow fond of it.'

So, they'll sell the war as some kind of mission of good will or other nonsense, and everyone starts thinking, 'Eh, that's not so bad, right?'.

And ten years later the eventually-awakened ones look back and realize we really had no goals and lost more of our men and women in a painstakingly slow and pointless quagmire, than if we'd just gone in with no holds barred and come out as soon as whatever 'job' was done.

Anti Federalist
03-20-2011, 05:29 PM
Good question, it definitely is out of our jurisdiction. I'm just thinking about what America should do if there were a situation similar to Libya with one of our neighbors, say Cuba or Mexico. If the Cuban people decided to rise up and try to throw out Castro, but Castro was able to hold the rebellion back with helicopters and bombers, wouldn't we want our military to use it's significant air prowess to even the scales?

That's already pretty much happened, back in the 1960s.

We didn't like the way it turned out and figured that a land/air/sea invasion would be the only option.

The only way to make that happen would have been to get the American people behind the war effort.

Thus, NorthWoods, where the "defense" establishment of this nation put a plan down on paper to use US government forces to kill American citizens, blame it Cuba, to justify the invasion.

Down this road lies madness.

"There are only two reasons to go to war:

One is to defend your home, the other is to defend the Bill of Rights.

War for any other reason is a racket." - Smedley Darlington Butler.

Yieu
03-20-2011, 05:31 PM
Yieu are right.

Or do I mean, Yieu is right? But that doesn't sound right...

Yieu laughs.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 05:32 PM
And ten years later the eventually-awakened ones look back and realize we really had no goals and lost more of our men and women in a painstakingly slow and pointless quagmire, than if we'd just gone in with no holds barred and come out as soon as whatever 'job' was done.

Hey, what's good for General Motors--and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex--is good for the nation, right? So, getting the job done is as bad for the nation as peace is--and into that category falls your excellent arguments. So hush, mundane. The arms merchants have money to make.


Yieu laughs.

No, no, no! I laugh, you laugh, y'all laugh, they laugh--he laughs and she laughs, but only if they laugh alone! Yieu are entirely too confusing! Or is too confusing...

Anti Federalist
03-20-2011, 05:32 PM
Bingo. Coincidentally, the founders took 'war' as a much more serious issue than our congressmen do today, and I blame much of that on the perpetual false notion that there is any such thing as a 'humanitarian' war.

I believe it was Sherman who said, 'It is good that war is Hell, 'lest we grow fond of it.'

So, they'll sell the war as some kind of mission of good will or other nonsense, and everyone starts thinking, 'Eh, that's not so bad, right?'.

And ten years later the eventually-awakened ones look back and realize we really had no goals and lost more of our men and women in a painstakingly slow and pointless quagmire, than if we'd just gone in with no holds barred and come out as soon as whatever 'job' was done.

It becomes much easier as it becomes more "modernized" as well.

You don't get splattered with foul smelling bile, half digested shit, blood, and stomach contents from somebody you've just blown away from a cool, air conditioned, drone operating terminal thousands of miles away in the hills of Virginia.

nobody's_hero
03-20-2011, 05:37 PM
It becomes much easier as it becomes more "modernized" as well.

You don't get splattered with foul smelling bile, half digested shit, blood, and stomach contents from somebody you've just blow away from a cool, air conditioned, drone operating terminal thousands of miles away in the hills of Virginia.

True that. They can fight wars these days with a couch and a T.V. set. Certainly makes it a bit harder to see the real costs of war from Rumsfeld's living room.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 05:40 PM
True that. They can fight wars these days with a couch and a T.V. set. Certainly makes it a bit harder to see the real costs of war from Rumsfeld's living room.

I don't know. I think that the view from Rummy's house is that war doesn't cost, it pays. Of course, Rummy can afford to take that view; his house isn't under a No-Fly Zone.

nobody's_hero
03-20-2011, 05:43 PM
Damn. I'm frustrated after reading through this thread (not at RPF members I mean, but at this situation).

Ron Paul needs to announce his run now so my blood pressure will go back down.

I'm gonna take a break.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 05:45 PM
You are absolutely correct, and it was as you describe it up until yesterday. Today they're like, uh, this is more than we asked for, and we're beginning to wonder if you imperialistic people want a piece of the action when we're done...

Yeah, I heard the Arab League isn't happy about the civilian casualties from the tomahawks. There are two confirmed deaths so far but I'm sure we'll see more. They haven't called for an end to the no-fly zone though. I wish the coalition had just bombed the few sites where they could be sure the aren't any civilians, then wait a few days for word to get around and let people know to get the fuck away from radar jammers and anti-aircraft guns. Besides, the only time sensitive areas for the no-fly zones are places like Benghazi where Gaddafi forces are actively confronting rebels.

Al-jazeera is covering all these nuances as this goes on, it's pretty captivating stuff.


We shouldn't be policing the world.

Never said we should. I was just asking a question.

AGRP
03-20-2011, 05:51 PM
Why are we at war with Libya again? Did I miss something? Did Libya bomb us?

Anti Federalist
03-20-2011, 05:56 PM
Why are we at war with Libya again? Did I miss something? Did Libya bomb us?

Silence Mundane!

We've always been at with Libya, we were never at war with Iraq.

War is Peace.

tpreitzel
03-20-2011, 06:11 PM
Silence Mundane!

We've always been at with Libya, we were never at war with Iraq.

War is Peace.

Just the type of Orwellian doublespeak that gushes from the lips of POTUS, another Clintonian redefinition.

I'm seriously thinking of buying a straight jacket (with the POTUS' name on it) and carrying it to the ceremonial swearing into office of our next deranged POTUS. Hopefully, a Ron Paul presidency will finally break our streak of freaks in the Oval office.

Fox McCloud
03-20-2011, 06:12 PM
A no-fly zone is the same as a blockade; if you do it, it's a blatant act of war---you can't unlink a "no-fly zone" with "war".

malkusm
03-20-2011, 06:13 PM
I've repeatedly said all over this forum that I don't want Americans to be involved in the no-fly zone, you fucking ignorant prick.

Please refrain from attacking other members.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 06:14 PM
A no-fly zone is the same as a blockade; if you do it, it's a blatant act of war---you can't unlink a "no-fly zone" with "war".

Dude, go back and read my first post. Read it and understand it.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 06:14 PM
Just the type of Orwellian doublespeak that gushes from the lips of POTUS, another Clintonian redefinition.

Yeah, but the guy the liberals thought would end wars just started a third one. Just as though we weren't broke enough before. And he can redefine until he's blue in the face; it won't help.

Don't let up on his former supporters now.


Dude, go back and read my first post. Read it and understand it.

Easy, Ben. I don't think that was personal. I thought it a good addition to the conversation. A No Fly Zone isn't exactly a blockade, but it is a useful comparison using something that was around back when the Constitution was written. And, no, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have taken a blockade lightly the way our current crop of imperialists take the maintenance of a 'Zone'.

Fox McCloud
03-20-2011, 06:17 PM
Dude, go back and read my first post. Read it and understand it.

I did, and it still doesn't make sense what you're trying to say--so I went with the closest thing you appear to be saying--if you clarify a bit more, maybe a few of us will understand where you're coming from.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 06:19 PM
Please refrain from attacking other members.

He called me a neocon earlier. If you look at the history of threads where he and I have posted, he tries to provoke me with ad hominems and straw men in almost all of them. It's his style. He thinks he's making strong arguments, but he usually just attacks the credibility/intelligence of the other poster.

So yeah, I wasn't the aggressor, I just fired back an artillery shell after he's been hitting me with ICBM's for weeks.

malkusm
03-20-2011, 06:21 PM
He called me a neocon earlier. If you look at the history of threads where he and I have posted, he tries to provoke me with ad hominems and straw men in almost all of them. It's his style. He thinks he's making strong arguments, but he usually just attacks the credibility/intelligence of the other poster.

So yeah, I wasn't the aggressor, I just fired back an artillery shell after he's been hitting me with ICBM's for weeks.

That's fine, and you're welcome to respond to his posts; just try to do so in a less aggressive manner going forward.

BenIsForRon
03-20-2011, 06:28 PM
I did, and it still doesn't make sense what you're trying to say--so I went with the closest thing you appear to be saying--if you clarify a bit more, maybe a few of us will understand where you're coming from.

I'm talking about the degree of military action. I was under the impression that the declaring war would allow the president to take a declaration of war meant for a no-fly zone and use it to send in ground troops and occupy a territory. I was wondering if there was a way congress could limit the scope of the military action within the legislation.

acptulsa
03-20-2011, 06:30 PM
I was wondering if there was a way congress could limit the scope of the military action within the legislation.

In theory, they do that with the purse strings. In practice, we've seen what happens to the House members when they don't 'support the troops'. Because it's never the fault of whomever leaves them in hostile territory with no funding, but the people who cut the funding. Works out better for the Military Industrial Complex if they can define it that way.

pcosmar
03-20-2011, 06:33 PM
Dude, go back and read my first post. Read it and understand it.

What is the purpose of war?
1. Conquest, Taking land or resources.
2.Defensive, Stopping an aggressor from taking land or resources.
3. Revolution, overthrowing a current government.

What is our interest here? (other than "we" don't like Gaddafi)

low preference guy
03-20-2011, 06:34 PM
He called me a neocon earlier.

no. i said neocons would want to use the military to help rebels in cuba. i did not say you were a neocon.

pcosmar
03-20-2011, 06:59 PM
Cuba?
As I remember there was something called the "Bay of Pigs".

Aid was promised, but as the attack began, aid was pulled. Many died and the attempt failed.

aGameOfThrones
03-20-2011, 07:44 PM
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

When John Quincy Adams served as U. S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.

///